(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) 1. The present appeal is filed by one Alstom Projects India Ltd. which was erstwhile known as ABB (Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.) being aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition Nos.9 and 10 of 2006 in Company Application No.357 of 2005 dated 01.03.2007.
2. The learned Advocate Ms. Minoo A. Shah for the appellant - Alstom Projects India Ltd. submitted that Alstom Projects India Ltd. supplied a power plant to Core Health Care Ltd.. It is her case that, the said power plant was supplied to Core Health Care Ltd. with a specific condition in the invoice itself that, 'until the amount of invoice is paid to the supplier, the owner ship of the property which is the subject matter of the invoice, will not pass into the hands of buyer'.
3. The case of the appellant as submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant is that, the Core Health Care Ltd. never paid the full price of the power plant and therefore, the ownership of the power plant was never stood transferred to Core Health Care Ltd..
4. Assuming, all in favour of the appellant, then also the remedy does not lie by way of filing a Company Application No.618 of 2006 because the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar for Nirma Ltd. i.e. respondent no.3 herein states that, 'the power plant' in question was never the subject matter of the scheme which was granted by the learned Company Judge while deciding the Company Petition Nos.9 and 10 of 2006. That being so, the present appellant cannot have any right of filing the Company Application No.618 of 2006 and the Order passed thereon, cannot be challenged by filing present appeal.
5. Learned Advocate for the appellant did contend that, there was an Order of injunction obtained by the appellant in a Civil Suit and according to the appellant, that injunction is operative till today. Be that, as it may. The question which falls for consideration of this Court that is 'whether the appellant can be granted any relief in these proceedings or not'.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Darshan M. Parikh appearing for Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ARCIL) – respondent no.4 submitted that, ARCIL has filed an affidavit running from page nos.246 to 253 and it is a specific case of ARCIL that, it is not claiming any right over the power plant in question and not only that it had never claimed any right and has not taken possession of the said power plant.
7. We have not examined any other aspect of the matter except the aspect that the power plant in question was not the subject matter of the scheme (Company Petition Nos.9 and 10 of 2006) and therefore, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
8. At the request of learned Advocate for the appellant, it is clarified that, non entertainment of this appeal, will not deprive the appellant from pursuing the remedy available to them under the law.
(Ravi R. Tripathi, J.) Sunil W. Wagh (N. V. Anjaria, J.)